DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (GB2493553A) in view of Takahashi (US 2017/0122669).
Per claim 1, Batey teaches a dilution refrigerator comprising:
a plurality of thermalization plates (11-13, 16, 17) configured to be cooled to a plurality of temperatures,
wherein:
a first thermalization plate (11) of the plurality of thermalization plates comprises an integrated heat exchanger (“heat exchanger”, pg. 15, line 7; to clarify, the “heat exchanger” is a part of the system, thus the “heat exchanger” is an “integrated heat exchanger”),
the integrated heat exchanger comprises an input (where 31 enters 11; see figure 1) formed on a first surface (top surface of 11; see figure 1) of the first thermalization plate, an outlet (where 31 exits 11 toward 12) formed on a second surface of the first thermalization plate opposite the first surface (see figure 1), and at least one channel formed in the first thermalization plate and fluidly coupling the input to the outlet (i.e. the pathway from the inlet to the outlet is a “channel”), and
the at least one channel is configured to allow helium to flow from the input, through the first thermalization plate, and to the outlet during operation of the dilution refrigerator (“”the controller 38 operates a valve and pump 34 in the cooling line 31 to supply a helium gas mixture from the vessel 32 (this being the gas mixture received from the dilution refrigerator 15) into the pre-cooling system”, pg. 17, lines 26-30) but fails to explicitly teach
wherein the outlet is offset from the input in a direction parallel to a plane of the first surface of the first thermalization plate.
PNG
media_image1.png
503
935
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Takahashi teaches a heat exchange plate (figure 1 of Takahashi) including a first surface (see annotated figure below of figure 1), a second surface (see annotated figure below of figure 1), and input (see annotated figure below of figure 1), and an output (see annotated figure below of figure 1), wherein the output is offset (see annotated figure below figure 1 showing an offset) from the input in a direction parallel to a plane of the first surface (see annotated figure below showing the direction parallel to the plane of the first surface) for providing a reduced size heat exchange system (para. 0006). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide an output offset from an input in a direction parallel to a plane of a first surface, as taught by Takahashi in the invention of Batey, in order to advantageously provide a reduced size heat exchanger system (para. 0008).
PNG
media_image2.png
551
584
media_image2.png
Greyscale
When the Takahashi output being offset from the input in the direction parallel to the plane of the first surface is combined with the first thermalization plate, input and output of Batey, the result is wherein the outlet is offset from the input in a direction parallel to a plane of the first surface of the first thermalization plate, as claimed.
Per claim 2, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Batey, as modified, teaches the integrated heat exchanger.
In regards to the recitation “formed by additive manufacturing”; the examiner is interpreting the limitations as a product by process and per MPEP 2113, "[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process”. Since the product in the product by process claim is the same as the prior art of Batey the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.
Claim 30, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Batey, as modified, teaches wherein the integrated heat exchanger is disposed in a plane of the first thermalization plate (the integrated heat exchanger is the input, the output, and the channel which are all apart the first thermalization plate 11, thus the integrated heat exchanger is disposed in a plane of the first thermalization plate).
Claim(s) 3-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (GB2493553A) in view of Takahashi (US 2017/0122669) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Franz et al. (US 2015/0160702).
Per claims 3-4, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Batey, as modified, teaches the first thermalization plate but fails to explicitly teach wherein the first thermalization plate further comprises a detachable portion, the detachable portion comprising the integrated heat exchanger (claim 3) and further comprising an interchangeable dilution insert detachably coupled to the detachable portion of the first thermalization plate (claim 4).
However, Franz teaches a thermalization plate (500/404) including a detachable portion (504), the detachable portion comprising an integrated heat exchanger (500) (claim 3), further comprising an interchangeable dilution insert (404) detachably coupled to the detachable portion (504) of the first thermalization plate (500/404) (claim 4) for improving cooling performance (para. 0066). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a thermalization plate including a detachable portion, the detachable portion comprising an integrated heat exchanger (claim 3), further comprising an interchangeable dilution insert detachably coupled to the detachable portion of the first thermalization plate (claim 4), as taught by Franz in the invention of Batey, as modified, in order to advantageously improve cooing performance (para. 0066).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (GB2493553A) in view of Takahashi (US 2017/0122669) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Hoehne (US 2021/0402407).
Per claim 7, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Batey, as modified, teaches an experimental volume (20) thermally coupled to a coldest thermalization plate (17) of the plurality of thermalization plates (11-13, 16, 17), a still (14) coupled to a second thermalization plate (13) warmer than the coldest thermalization plate (7), the still being configured to perform cooling by distilling 3He vapor from a mixture of 3He and 4He (this is the function of a still in a dilution refrigerator) but fails to explicitly teach a continuous heat exchanger disposed between the second thermalization plate and the coldest thermalization plate.
However, Hoehne teaches a dilution refrigerator including a continuous heat exchanger (38) disposed between a second thermalization plate (8-4) and a coldest thermalization plate (8-5). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a continuous heat exchanger disposed between a second thermalization plate and a coldest thermalization plate, as taught by Hoehne in the invention of Batey, as modified, in order to advantageously regulate the temperature of the helium.
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (GB2493553A) in view of Takahashi (US 2017/0122669) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Katoh et al. (WO2015004904).
Per claims 8-10, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Batey, as modified, fails to explicitly teach at least one heat exchanger thermally coupled to a thermalization plate of the plurality of thermalization plates, wherein the at least one heat exchanger comprises a nanomaterial (claim 8), wherein the nanomaterial comprises at least one or nanowires, nanofoams, nanopellets, and/or nanotubes (claim 9), wherein the nanomaterial comprises nanowires comprising one or more of copper nanowires, silver nanowires, gold nanowires, platinum nanowires, polymer nanowires, carbon nanowires, and/or carbon fiber nanowires (claim 10).
Regarding the heat exchanger, Hoehne teaches a dilution refrigerator including a heat exchanger (38) thermally coupled to a thermalization plate (8-4) of a plurality of thermalization plates. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a heat exchanger thermally coupled to a thermalization plate of a plurality of thermalization plates, as taught by Hoehne in the invention of Batey, as modified, in order to advantageously regulate the temperature of the helium.
Regarding the nanomaterial, Katoh teaches a heat exchanger including a nanomaterial (“nanowire”, pg. 21 of Translation) (claim 8), wherein the nanomaterial comprises nanowire (“nanowire” pg. 21 of Translation), wherein the nanomaterial comprises gold nanowires (“Ag nanowire”, pg. 21 of Translation) (claim 10) for improving thermal conductivity (pg. 21 of Translation). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a heat exchanger comprising a nanomaterial (claim 8), wherein the nanomaterial comprises nanowires (claim 9), wherein the nanomaterial comprises gold nanowires (claim 10), as taught by Katoh in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously improve thermal conductivity (pg. 21 of Translation).
Per claim 11, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in
the above rejection of claim 8. Further, Batey, as modified, teaches wherein the heat
exchanger (“heat exchanger”, pg. 15, line 7) is a discrete heat exchanger (the heat exchanger operates as a heat exchanger, thus the heat exchanger is a “discrete” heat exchanger).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (GB2493553A) in view of Takahashi (US 2017/0122669) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Benoit et al. (US 4,672,823).
Per claims 12-13, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Batey, as modified, fails to explicitly teach a condensing line configured to transport helium to a coldest thermalization plate of the plurality of thermalization plates; a still disposed along the condensing line before the coldest thermalization plate; a heat exchanger disposed along the condensing line between the still and the coldest thermalization plate; and a heat exchange line configured to transfer a return helium mixture from the heat exchanger to the still and to decrease a temperature of a helium mixture in the condensing line at a location above the still (claim 12) and a Joule-Thomson expander disposed along the condensing line before the still, wherein: the heat exchange line is configured to decrease the temperature of the helium mixture in the condensing line at a location before the Joule-Thomson expander (claim 13).
However, Benoit teaches a dilution refrigerator including a condensing line (48) configured to transport helium to a coldest thermalization plate (44) of a plurality of thermalization plates (44, 23, 10); a still (40) disposed along the condensing line before the coldest thermalization plate (44); a heat exchanger (52) disposed along the condensing line between the still (40) and the coldest thermalization plate (44); a heat exchange line (58) configured to transfer a return helium mixture from the heat exchanger to the still and to decrease a temperature of a helium mixture in the condensing line at a location above the still (40) (see figure of Benoit showing 58 above 40) (claim 12) and a Joule-Thomson expander (49) disposed along the condensing line before the still (40), wherein: the heat exchange line (58) is configured to decrease the temperature of the helium mixture in the condensing line (48) at a location before the Joule-Thomson expander (49) (claim 13) for rapid operation of the dilution refrigerator (col. 1, line 48-50). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a condensing line configured to transport helium to a coldest thermalization plate of a plurality of thermalization plates; a still disposed along the condensing line before the coldest thermalization plate; a heat exchanger disposed along the condensing line between the still and the coldest thermalization plate; and a heat exchange line configured to transfer a return helium mixture from the heat exchanger to the still and to decrease a temperature of a helium mixture in the condensing line at a location above the still (claim 12) and a Joule-Thomson expander disposed along the condensing line before the still, wherein: the heat exchange line is configured to decrease the temperature of the helium mixture in the condensing line at a location before the Joule-Thomson expander (claim 13), as taught by Benoit in the invention of Batey, as modified, in order to advantageously provide rapid operation of the dilution refrigerator (col. 1, line 48-50).
Claim(s) 14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (GB2493553A) in view of Takahashi (US 2017/0122669) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Benoit et al. (US 4,672,823) and Saho et al. (US 4,986,077).
Per claims 14 and 18, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further, Batey, as modified, fails to explicitly teach a condensing line configured to transport helium to a coldest thermalization plate of the plurality of thermalization plates; and a high-surface area material disposed along the condensing line and configured to cause the transported helium to adsorb to the high-surface area material during a cooldown cycle of the dilution refrigerator (claim 14), and wherein the high-surface area material comprises one of activated charcoal or a metal powder (claim 18).
Regarding the condensing line, Benoit teaches a dilution refrigerator including a condensing line (48) configured to transport helium to a coldest thermalization plate (44) of a plurality of thermalization plates (44, 23, 10) for rapid operation of the dilution refrigerator (col. 1, line 48-50). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a condensing line configured to transport helium to a coldest thermalization plate of a plurality of thermalization plates, as taught by Benoit in the invention of Batey, as modified, in order to advantageously provide rapid operation of the dilution refrigerator (col. 1, line 48-50)
Regarding the high-surface material, Saho teaches a refrigerator including a high-surface material (“activated charcoal” col. 4, line 27) disposed along a condensing region (41) and configured to cause helium to adsorb to the high-surface area material during a cooldown cycle of the refrigerator (“helium gas is condensed and absorbed by the cooling panel 41 and an absorbent, such as activated charcoal 42 provided on the cooling panel 41” col. 4, lines 27-29) (claim 14) and wherein the high-surface area material comprises activated charcoal (claim 18) for increasing a degree of vacuum in the refrigerator (col. 4, lines 29-30). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a high-surface area material disposed in a condensing region and configured to cause helium to adsorb to the high-surface material during a cooldown cycle of the refrigerator (claim 14) and wherein the high-surface area material comprises activated charcoal (claim 18), as taught by Saho in the combined teachings, in order to advantageously increase a degree of vacuum in the refrigerator (col. 4, lines 29-30).
When the high-surface area material is combined with the condensing line of Hoehne, as modified, the result is a high-surface area material disposed along the condensing line and configured to cause the transported helium to adsorb to the high-surface area material during a cooldown cycle of the dilution refrigerator, as claimed.
Claim(s) 25 and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (GB2493553A) in view of Takahashi (US 2017/0122669) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Vrazel (US 2010/0083940).
Per claim 25, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 1. Further Batey, as modified, teaches the integrated heat exchanger but fails to explicitly teach wherein the integrated heat exchanger comprises a material structure disposed in the at least one channel and in contact with the helium flowing through the first thermalization plate.
However, Vrazel teaches heat exchanger comprising a material structure (206) disposed in the at least one channel (path of 202) and in contact with helium (“helium”, para. 0021) flowing through a first thermalization plate (204) for enhancing thermal exchange (para. 0034). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a material structure disposed in a channel and in contact with helium flowing through first thermalization plate, as taught by Vrazel in the inventio of Batey, as modified, in order to advantageously enhance thermal exchanger (para. 0034).
Per claim 28, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 25. Further, Batey, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the material structure is formed of a metal. However the Examiner take OFFICAL NOTICE that it is old and well known have material structures formed of metal for high strength and thermal conductivity. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to form the material structure of metal in order to advantageously provide high strength and thermal conductivity.
In the Office Action dated 4/17/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that material formed of metal is old and well known in the cooling art. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art.
Per claim 29, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 28. Further, Batey, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the metal comprises one or more of copper, silver, and/or aluminum. However, the Examiner takes OFFICIAL NOTICE that it is old and well known to have metal comprising copper for high thermal conductivity. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide the metal as copper in order to advantageously provide high thermal conductivity.
In the Office Action dated 4/17/2025, the Examiner took Official Notice that material formed of coper is old and well known in the cooling art. Applicant has failed to traverse the(se) statement(s). As such, and in accordance with MPEP §2144.03, the statements are now considered admitted prior art.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Batey et al. (GB2493553A) in view of Takahashi (US 2017/0122669) and Vrazel (US 2010/0083940) as applied to the claims above and further in view of Walther (US 2003/0168209).
Per claim 26, Batey, as modified, meets the claim limitations as disclosed in the above rejection of claim 25. Further, Batey, as modified, fails to explicitly teach wherein the material structure is a lattice structure. However, Walther teaches a heat exchanger wherein a material structure is a lattice structure (para. 0038) for increased heat transfer (para. 0016). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to provide a material structure as a lattice structure, as taught by Walther in the invention of Batey, as modified, in order to advantageously increase heat transfer (para. 0016).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 5-6, 15-17, and 19-24 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combination of references being used in the current rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID J TEITELBAUM whose telephone number is (571)270-5142. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am-4:30 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FRANTZ JULES can be reached on (571) 272-66816681. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DAVID J TEITELBAUM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763